- 14 -
in petitioner's own name and used petitioner's Social Security
number and address.
In reconstructing petitioner's income, respondent has
properly excluded several items from the total deposits in
account No. 308-8083971. Respondent excluded these items because
they appeared to be transfers from account No. 308-8064948, and,
as such, they had already been included as income in the form of
deposits to account No. 308-8064948. From the remaining amounts
in each account, respondent also properly subtracted a number of
items that appeared to be checks issued in payment of deductible
business expenses. The remaining unexplained deposits totaled
$81,773 and $55,990 for the respective years in issue.
Respondent invited petitioner to confer so that petitioner could
explain the transactions in these bank accounts, but petitioner
refused to do so. When asked at trial to explain the
transactions reflected in these accounts, petitioner again
declined to do so.
We hold that under the bank deposits method, respondent has
borne the burden of showing that these amounts, $81,773 and
$55,990, are additional unreported taxable income for the years
1990 and 1991, respectively. See United States v. Stone, 770
F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Soulard, 730 F.2d
1292, 1298 (9th Cir. 1984).
B. Petitioner's Legal Contentions
On brief, petitioner's response to the deficiencies and
additions to tax has been to assert discredited tax-protester
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011